The early results for the long-ago approved Beach Chalet Athletic Fields renovation are holding as well, with 55% supporting the measure to allow fake turf and lights to be installed.

EARLY RESULTS: Based on the results of 79,009 mail-in ballots returned, a third of the 244,663 which were issued, San Francisco Ballot Measure G is failing with 59% of the mail-in ballots marked NO versus 41% YES.

San Francisco Ballot Measure F which would allow the building height limit for Pier 70 to be increased from 40 feet to 90 feet and clear the way for the approved redevelopment of the 28-acre site to proceed is passing with 71% of the mail-in ballots marked YES versus 29% NO.

We’ll have the early counts for the votes cast at polling places in San Francisco later tonight.

UPDATE: Including 35,619 election day ballots from polling places around San Francisco, Proposition G is still failing but by a smaller margin (56% No). The early results for the Pier 70 Measure (Passing) and Beach Chalet Athletic Fields renovation (Passing) are holding as well.

UPDATE:With 98 percent of precincts in San Francisco reporting and 83,995 election day ballots counted in addition to the mail-in ballots reported above, Proposition G would appear to have failed (54% NO) and the redevelopment plans for Pier 70 are a lock (72% YES).

The early results for the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields renovation (Passing) is holding as well, with 55% supporting the measure to allow fake turf and lights.

People will vote for their own interest, but this is a case where voters saw their long term interest, at last. Yes SF has a majority of tenants and many of these are rent controlled, but they are also conscious this is a capitalist society. Many of these “progressives” are tongue-in-cheek socialists, ok with enjoying the slow steady transfer of wealth of rent control, but NOT OK with the sudden taking of property.

Plus an expropriation of 1/4 of your assets would a clear precedent to more extremist actions. It’s not funny anymore at this point.

Huh. If “wealth transfer” is such a problem, what is the value of hundreds of percent profit on the interstitial pergraniteel facelift and dwellification (white paint) adding friction to the sale of a house from one real homeowner to the next? That kind of socialism is OK?

UPDATE: With 98 percent of precincts in San Francisco reporting and 83,995 election day ballots counted in addition to the mail-in ballots reported above, Proposition G would appear to have failed with 54% voting NO while the redevelopment plans for Pier 70 are a lock (72% YES).

The early results for the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields renovation (Passing) is holding as well, with 55% supporting the measure to allow fake turf and lights.

The voting process is hugely problematic w/r/t complex issues like this. The discussion is reduced to a question like, “Shall the city have a new transfer tax of 14-14% that applies to certain multifamily buildings?” [Yes or no] I think ultimately most people saw a big tax number and voted no.

I have no faith that a significant proportion of the electorate knew the issue or had any opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed change. I say that as much because of what limited knowledge I had of some of the other issues on the ballot.

soccermom is probably right. The “yes on G” crowd is already whining that the ONLY reason they lost was that the ballot measure was poorly titled. On the other hand, the demographics are clearly changing. Newer, more well-heeled renters are more likely to see rent control as raising their rents rather than helping them, and more likely to see themselves as owners one day. Not sure how much of a factor that has been yet, but it is the trend.

With Prop G going down in flames, and Judge Breyer putting the kibosh on the ridiculous Ellis payments, the trends toward more homeownership should continue, which is good for a strong, stable population.

The titling of propositions is bizarre – I almost changed my mind to vote against “I” when I saw the fairly biased title – something along the lines of “Should the City renovate the fields so as to double their recreational use.”, no mention of astroturf or night lighting…

Loving that each election, SF is proving to be more and more sane. Pockets of crazy exist, and district elections are the only reason they have power. Revert SF back to citywide supervisor elections and no more Happy Meal ban laws.

I’m hoping he just disappears from politics once his BoS term ends… may or may not happen.

I agree he would be mostly ineffectual in the assembly, and it would certainly be great to have him off the board, but the assembly would still give him a platform, and elevate his influence in some regards since it’s a state position rather than city.

Campos is a bad apple for Democrats. He should resign from the Democratic Party. Republican regained Senate, all the fault was the extreme junk like Campos.

On the other hand, a Republican congress is good for property rights. When we get a Republican president, I hope that the Democratic Party will start cleaning house and get rid of extreme liberals such as Campos.

The Republicans taking the Senate is largely because only a few old white people voted and they are still mad [about Obama] being in the White House.

The national Democratic Party is dominated by “extreme liberals” only in the minds of someone who would be happier in Franco’s Spain, Apartheid-era South Africa. Might I suggest Oklahoma as a better venue for your activities? For every Campos (who has no national presence), your party has a dozen Palins and Inhofes and DeMints.

both parties are dominated by extremes. there are a few exceptions. Hilary Clinton is a good moderate, but am afraid the extreme progressives will run her out of the democratic ticket. I also think Jeb Bush is a pretty good moderate on the other sides, but his name is forever tainited by his idot brother.

Still a very pricey election overall with minimum wage increase, $500 million bond with no specific allocations for uses named, and new set asides to cannibalize discretionary general fund dollars. Wait until we start figuring out sea level rise flood control costs for SoMa/Mission Bay….

Yes we are stuck with Campos. Maybe he will prepare his grand exit, make a nice soundbite, move to the ‘burbs and fail in the pub business like Daly.
Is there a place in Colma for the broken dreams of these overarching control freaks?

Sorry, the soda tax was a non-starter for me. If you’re going to implement a tax on sugar products, why don’t you add in white bread, cookies, donuts, cakes, yogurts, cereals, etc. It called out a specific industry for a problem that is endemic to our food production.

“It called out a specific industry for a problem that is endemic to our food production.”

Exactly. And why stop at just sugar products. Many fatty foods are not exactly great for one’s health (or the environment if such foods are animal based). At some point we do have to exercise some personal responsibility.

doctors who treat diabetes and obesity often start with the lowest hanging fruit – less (or no) soda and sweetened drinks, less tv and gaming and computer time, more walking – a surprising number of patients succeed with this and need no more intensive interventions. next up are simple carbs – baked goods, white bread, white rice, potatoes, tortillas, and fast-food. i never counsel against cereal or yogurt but against TYPES of cereal or yogurt.

i’d vote for a sugar tax if it meant better health (a public good) and lower health insurance costs (the resulting positive externality) by combating behavior too many people do not even realize is both harmful and costly (the current negative externality).

given the 55% support and the higher support in Berkeley, i’d bet a soda tax (a sin tax similar to tobacco and alcohol taxes) and a more general sugar tax (or at least lower government subsidies for sugar producers) will happen.

Well on the “soda tax” there’s a lot of “spin” there – the fact is that something like 55% of the people – a majority – supported it. Just not enough for it to pass, because it needed 2/3rds. Annoys me when I see pundits say “the people rejected the soda tax” (or words to that effect) when a clear (if not decisive) majority voted for it. (Same with medical marijuana in Florida – 57% voted for it, but it needed 60%, so it’s being headlined as “Florida rejects medical marijuana!”)

We don’t need a soda tax. Scott Wiener is not a medical professional. Scott and his ilk are in the business of laying legislative [duds] in San Francisco and elsewhere to get a name to bolster what they imagine is their political careers. The people can figure out what to eat or not. The soda tax is a test of the people to see if they are willing to be controlled by the Communists who would like nothing more than to starve you and feed you via long lines the babushkas wait in. Read your history, that is what Communists are about. What Scott and Mars and Avalos and Campos need to go is get the hell out of town and find real jobs. So in summary, we don’t give a damn that you are annoyed. The threshold is 67% or 60%, so if it misses that, it failed.

Socialism leads to tyranny. If we (the taxpayers) forcibly pays for your healthcare (through taxes), then we get a justification when we want to regulate your personal habits. Starts with soda, motorcycle riding, how long you’re allowed to watch tv, mandatory yoga… where does it end?

I think constitunionality was the least of their problem. I think that even in a city like SF capitalism is strongly ingrained in everyone’s DNA. Many people who voted no might never have the opportunity to purchase but they know how this tax is counter to their interest.

Another theory is that the demographics of SF is changing. If this is actually happening guys like Campos must be a bit nervous these days…

What really surprised me was seeing prop A win. Even among some transit advocates, there was skepticism over handing the SFMTA a blank check. Though I would have preferred a line item listing of what the money would be used for, I still voted for it because the city hasn’t had a transportation bond for several decades.

I bike to work every day. But I almost voted for prop-L. It lost my vote because of a few stupid line items (I like parking meters and think they should be more expensive). But transit first has mostly been a joke. And if you can’t bike and are poor, your options are very limited. We need more parking garages near where people want to go.

Owning a car in a dense city will make you poorer. We really do need to improve transit and make some tough political decisions on how street space is allocated and how zoning is changed to support transit.

Not necessarily. If you are rent controlled or are an owner benefiting from Prop 13 with a garage, life is not that expensive. Take your car to the grocery store or out of town, never pay for parking. Insurance and gas are marginally higher, but not to the point of making you poorer.

I have a friend who fits this exact description. 68 on SS from a middle-income job, bought her house in NV in 1975, has a space for her car and still has something left at the end of the month. This is the demographic that is really pissed at anti-car actions, and I understand her frustration.

As a cyclist, I think these situations are an anomaly, but that we need to take them into consideration.

She can take Muni. She probably won’t be driving too many more years and then she will be Muni dependent. We need to set aside more space on the roadway for the more efficient means of transportation, Muni first and foremost. This pisses off those who choose to drive, but the people have spoken over and over again that San Francisco is “Transit First” not “Auto First.”

Muni, yes. But she’s on a 25% grade street and 2 blocks from any stop. She should be moving to the flatlands and close to transit, but she feels the sidewalks have been taken over by the homeless and won’t hear anything about it. She’s a poster child of prop 13 consequences.

We’re a lot younger than this woman, but in a similar car-cost situation. We have a garage – weren’t really demanding one when looking for a new home a few years ago, but the place we bought has one. Our car is a paid off 8-year old civic with close to $0 in maintenance costs and $500/yr for insurance. So it is way, way cheaper than using cabs, uber, zipcar, etc. (no matter how you do the accounting) Basically cost of gas. I muni to work every day, and our kids walk to school. But we still drive 8-10 times a week, to lessons, friends, out of town, etc. Public transportation in this town is pretty lousy outside of a few corridors, so the car saves us a ton of time. I bike and walk (and run) a lot, but it is worth every penny to be able to, say, zip to the Marina and pick up one kid from a sleepover, then run another to the sunset for a lesson and back home. All in about 2 hours less time than it would take on the 22 or the N.

I sure hope these new funds are properly used to improve the scope, quality, and frequency of public transportation. I love visiting Tokyo, Paris, London, and other cities where transportation is really great. I’ll ditch the car in a heartbeat when it makes sense to do so, but until then I will drive any time it is more convenient to do so – which is nearly always other than the commute to the financial district (which is much faster and cheaper for me by muni than by car). Maybe when I’m 68 like this lady, I can get rid of the car and convert the garage to a rental unit.

I do not doubt that it is faster and more convenient to you to use a car to get around, but you are kidding yourself if you think the only cost of car ownership is gasoline. Maintenance? Depreciation? Even an eight year old car has depreciation costs. Plus there is the cost of parking whether you acknowledge it or not. You could rent out your garage for $100-300/month, depending on your location. Even if you drive 3000 a year, your car probably costs you $4-5k/yr all in.

If you are paying $500 a year in insurance, you are not carrying collision, so you are carrying that risk yourself. There is a cost associated with that, and it is close to what an insurance company would charge you for full coverage.

Edmonds has the TCO on a 5 year old Honda to be $6757. Yours will have less depreciation but more maintenance costs:

I hope Campos s not ready any of this. He could waste our collective time on a new proposition to put an annual $10,000 tax on garages! Hey these people have money and pay nothing to own a car! Social justice!

Like I said NoeValleyJim, do the accounting any way you want. It is still way, way cheaper for me to own our car than to use uber, zipcar, etc. when I need a car. (Sure, I could just not drive, but my billing rate is $800/hour, so the opportunity cost of the wasted time trumps all that really fast — opportunity costs run both ways). I can itemize every cent I’ve spent on maintenance over the last few years, and it is not zero but pretty darn close. 8 years old, 55,000 miles, and basically we put in gas and change the oil about every 9 months. Even if you use your $900/year figure, couple thousand in depreciation, etc., the cost of owning comes out to be way less than the alternatives. Heck, one round trip to the airport by cab or uber is $130, whereas my wife can drive me for about $3 in gas. And that alone is about 20 trips a year. It is cheap for me to own a car, and it is by far the best way for my family to get around in many cases – saves us a ton of money and invaluable time.

I wish I could quickly and easily hop on public transportation to get around. And where I can, I do. But in most circumstances, I can’t. Too time-consuming and inconvenient. Owning and using a car is a better, cheap option. And personally, it is quite rare for me to encounter a whole lot of traffic. More transit – yes! But owning a car is the smart, sensible option much of the time.

Not too many people use parking metered spots for long term car storage (other than the inexplicably large number of placard holders). However, the storage of automobiles on the streets outside of parking metered zones is too cheap. I would support increasing the cost of residential parking permits with the proceeds going to helping subsidize Muni AND building more neighborhood parking garages.

this was also an extremely poorly worded prop. More people would’ve voted for it if it were clear that cars should be integral to transporation planning. Instead, it just said ” city should change transportation priorities”

I never understood the Prop L goal, if it had passed, it would have no teeth to change policy as there was no wording as to how the SFMTA would be changed. Since it failed, now they will suffer with more “traffic calming” and bike lanes, which is what they were against. They should have just tried to work within the system instead, including attending hearings instead of trying this silly waste of an initiative. The wording was terrible. Has Sean Parker made a comment yet?

They had specific language that parking should be free outside of working hours and that the primary focus of the MTA should be on “smoother-flowing streets” They also wanted people with a pro-car agenda on the MTA board to represent their interests, which would have changed the Board considerably. They also said that money should be earmarked to build more parking garages. These are all substantive changes.

Fortunately, their agenda is not in tune with the vast majority of San Franciscans. The funniest thing is that if they got their way and even more people started driving, then traffic would be even worse.

I am not sure where to look, but someone told me there are more vehicles registered in San Francisco now than there was 10 years ago, is that true? Agree with you NVJ, the voters have spoken and they want more and better transit choices than driving and parking. I wonder if car ownership in this region is more out of necessity than choice for many?

Agreed! The per capita number of registrations is key to finding out whether Transit First is working. I would assume it is, but would love to be able to able to reference a source. I have seen an increase in ridership on the Marina Express, but could this be because of population growth, or people leaving their cars at home?

US Census publishes ownership by income and some other demographics. In SF vehicle ownership is highly correlated with income level (more money more cars) and number of people in a household (more people less chance of being carless).

About half the work commute vehicles in SF are people that commute from neighboring counties into SF to work. If you want to understand the rush hour traffic you have to understand more than just how SF residents use their cars.

theres no question there are more cars on the street now than even 2 yrs ago, but dont know the per capita numbers. My commute has increased by about 40% in just 2 yrs (30 min to 42 min). Of course, it still would take about 95 minutes to get their using public transit.

The number of cars in SF during commute is about 5% more than a few years ago and about the same as during the peak in 2000, according to the US Census. There are more jobs in SF now than in 2000, but not appreciably more cars. Most of the growth in commuter numbers since 2000 is from transit (BART/MUNI/Caltrain), while the greatest percentage growth are in things like work from home, bike, and walk. Some of these trends go back to at least 1990.
The US Census commute to work data has lots of detail about the flows between counties and the travel modes. Here are some rough figures for cars registered in SF:
– 25% are used to commute to a job in SF
– 20% are used to commute to a job outside of SF
– more than 10% are used to commute to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties

jake thanks for the data. i drive to the peninsula, and it has to be more than a 5% increase in south flowing traffic out of the city as traffic is way worse. the traffic on 101 going south from civic center exit to the airport is worse than the north folowing traffic into the city over the same stretch. Ive done this commute for 20yrs and have never seen that before. traffic inside the city is also worse, but a lot of it is due to construction

Now that Prop G has lost and the Ellis relocation payments have been tossed, I wonder if there will be a short term spike in Ellis notices? According to the city web site, the numbers of Ellis evictions have been low these past few months. I imagine that owners been waiting for clarity on the political issues before proceeding with Ellis.

Prop G hardly “went down in flames.” The spread was relatively small at 8%, especially considering how much money was poured into the No on G campaign. It very well might have passed or been a nailbiter in a higher turnout election. I’d say a spread of 60-40 or greater qualifies as a rout. Prop L for instance. This is not likely the end of these moronic pro-car hail marys we get on the ballot every few years.

Anyone remember Prop H in 2007, funded by Gap billionaire Don Fisher, which would have changed parking rules citywide, including downtown, to lift caps on parking, which would have resulted in an additional 20,000 parking spaces downtown and allowed three parking spot per unit citywide? It also would have given Hummers preferential parking through a poorly crafted preferential parking scheme for “low emmission vehicles,” which is pretty much every vehicle sold for market in California. Also went down in flames 67-33. I see a theme of out-of-touch billionaires thinking they know what’s beneficial for the common person in San Francisco and then tasking some doofus to craft sloppy and over-reaching initiatives to undermine decades of adopted policy and planning in the City.

Campos is a bad apple for Democrats. He should resign from the Democratic Party. Republican regained Senate, all the fault was the extreme junk like Campos.

On the other hand, a Republican congress is good for property rights. When we get a Republican president, I hope that the Democratic Party will start cleaning house and get rid of extreme liberals such as Campos.

The Chinese strongly supported Prop G hence the close race. There were signs all over Chinatown and I saw a teenage girl holding a pro Prop G sign at the Chinatown gate. I am sure they all heard the sob story of Gum Gee Lee, a victim of an Ellis Act eviction, who probably should have moved to Antioch decades ago.

David Chiu got a lot of Asian votes. I think most of the Chinese voters live in Sunset and Richmond, they most likely vote against Prop G since they are mostly homeowners.

Chinatown is mostly a business district. Very few people live in Chinatown. I heard that there are some public housing over there, it is possible that those low income residents in public housing may support Prop G and Campos.

Yes but 15,000 is far from being a majority. The asian population was 267,915 per the 2010 census, with largest contingent being Chinese. Homeownership is ingrained into the culture just like it is in the rest of the American culture.

The Chinatown precincts had about 5600 votes in this election and it looks like they split on prop G. A quick skim of the precinct data looks like Prop G got strong support from the tenderloin, and parts of districts 10 and 11. Strong opposition from the wealthiest precincts in areas like the Marina, pac hghts,… Outer Sunset more opposed than Inner Sunset.

Thanks for the the breakdown Jake. The far left exist in 1/2 of Chinatown (likely those in the Ping Yuen Projects and SRO residents) Not surprised from the TL, that area still needs further gentrification. Districts 10 and 11 — Bayview/Hunter’s Point (?) Western Addition (?) I am surprised with Inner Sunset but the area has one of the largest concentration of apartment dwellers than homeowners compared with single family homes in Outer Sunset. All in all, SF needs more homeowners and people with skin in the game.

Bernal Heights are mostly single family houses, I would assume a high homeowner rate. Surprisingly Bernal Heights favored Campos over Chiu. Campos does live in Bernal Heights, I am still surprised by the votes.

UPDATE: With another 10,000 mail-in ballots having been added to the tallies, the outcomes and margins for each of the measures reported above have not changed. And while the results have yet to be certified, it would appear that the outcome for Proposition G will hold and the measure has been defeated.

I’m very surprised Prop G failed. I thought San Francisco voters were smarter than that. Doesn’t anyone remember the economic meltdown about 6 years ago? Was anyone paying attention to what led up to that? It was a speculative bubble. I’m simplifying the situation, but in large part, that housing bubble was just like the bubble being blown in the San Francisco economy right now.

Leading up to the economic collapse, there were mortgage companies, banks, realtors, and all sorts of people betting on the fact that the price of homes would continue to rise. But they didn’t have the money to cover those bets, and the housing market eventually collapsed because the price of homes cannot and will not ever increase indefinitely. There is always a maximum price valuation the market will support.

In San Francisco, realtors were the ones paying for those Prop G advertisements with the scrambled eggs and the guy kicking his alarm clock off the night stand. They are riding a housing bubble. The economy is doing well here, so the housing market is hot. Home prices are increasing, so people are buying homes, making minor improvement and changes, then selling them for huge profits. As property values go up, so does the cost of living in San Francisco.

Prop G would have stopped the current “housing bubble” from blowing so fast, making a crash less inevitable and less severe, and it would have added money to the city’s treasury, allowing us to pay for some of the other propositions we just voted for.

Doubtful. I think you would have seen very few transactions subject to the tax. Given the levels proposed, most people would either wait the five years, move in for a year, or structure the transaction such that the transfer tax did not apply. Frankly, I think that was the point of the proposition.

On the other hand, you would have seen fewer transactions of multi-family buildings and those that did sell would be sold for a nominally lower price given the risk in having to sell within the five year period. This would likely have decreased future property tax receipts and have a negative impact on the city’s treasury.

I don’t think so. It would have made it a lot harder for flippers to profit but individuals would have stepped in to buy the properties and fixed them up for themselves. Investors with long-term horizons would have done the same. Only flippers would have been harmed.

Here and there, sure. But most buyers neither have that sort of know how,nor want to deal with that sort of hassle. Also they don’t want to deal with the wait, and simply aren’t wired that way. Think about it. Who wants to buy something and then move in a year later? not that many people.

It would have had minimal impact on anything. First, the number of units affected is so small as to not even move the dial on rents or evictions. Second, as I’ve noted earlier, I spot about a dozen simple ways to structure a “sale” so that it would not trigger Prop G, so even the speculators would not have been deterred. Would have been a few bucks for the lawyers, but that would have been about the extent of it.

Wow! After it’s all said and done, Prop G goes down with a margin of 8%. That’s a decent margin. Perhaps it’s time to revisit rent control in it’s current form as it is clearly not working for either side unless you severely game the system. Means testing would be a start that I think both sides should not have any qualms with. Publicly funded vouchers to help the most vulnerable would be another. Whaddya say.

When Obama “won” in 2008 and 2012, they called it a landslide. Well, Prop G failed by a landslide. It deserved to fail. Prop G was nothing more than property theft by the state. Even it passed, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. Obviously, the state cannot legally grab a part of the cost basis of property. If you read the Prop G text carefully, you will see that exemptions are not clearly defined, they depend on interpretation of “intended”, which is a Communist scum tactic, and towards end of text there is a provision to allow Board of Stupidvisors to pass any ordinance they want, which could be argument to later extend to any other part of Prop G. The Communists wanted to tap into the 1031 exchange money flow and they failed. There is no precedent for Prop G anywhere in the USA. Just another communist property grab attempt by Hugo Compost and his ilk. Very glad to see Compost resoundingly defeated. Compost is too extreme for California and even or San Francisco. Compost will have to pass go and not collect $200 and will have to focus on the hard work in the community, like trying to figure out how to get a soda tax passed. Compost is nothing more than just another Harvard grad laying legislative turds in San Francisco looking to get attention and create a political career, aspiring to Lt. Governor maybe while watching Moonbeam to kick the bucket. A more polite version of Chris Daly perhaps, but just as bereft of intellect and permanently mentally ill with Obamaism, Communism, that sort of stuff. I guess Compost will have pass up on running a bar in SF and just move to Fairfield directly. But gosh darn it the foreclosure crisis has abated and there are not many families left to purchase distressed properties. And speaking of bar, I keep reading how Compost was an attorney for this and that but I have searched and he is not registered with the bar in any jurisdiction or state that I can find, why is that.

Campos is a Harvard grad??? Like David Chiu??? Except David went to Harvard undergrad and law school I believe. And Supervisor Jane Kim is a Stanford grad.? What the heck are these elite schools teaching nowadays? Common Sense must have been an elective course, not a prerequisite. Where did you read Campos is an attorney? If he is not licensed by any state, including California, he has just misrepresented himself as an officer of the court.

UPDATE: Another 16,000 mail-in ballots have been added to the tallies. And with the voter “turnout” approaching 50 percent, the outcomes and percentages for the propositions as reported above remain the same.